Reasons for Doing Water Changes?

[bif24701]

What should these folks do? In these cases, regular water changes may well have limited the peak levels attained, and ozone may not reduce them.

In this sense, it is insurance. :)

SUPER high Iodine in ICP results
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/super-high-iodine-in-icp-results.328066/

High Si levels
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/high-si-levels.317519/#post-3922521

Removing lithium, nickel, and zinc
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/removing-lithium-nickel-and-zinc.327856/

Triton ICP.. High Zinc.. Advice needed.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-icp-high-zinc-advice-needed.326992/

My feelings are that Triton and other methods simply can not accomplish everything that water changes can. Even in my Triton report it recommended water changes due to my sulfite levels. I had added little much Epson's salt (magnesium sulfate), nothing of real concern still a water change is the only way to fix it.

 

[TbyZ]

What should these folks do? In these cases, regular water changes may well have limited the peak levels attained, and ozone may not reduce them.

In this sense, it is insurance. :)


SUPER high Iodine in ICP results

"Other than iodine supplements, the significant sources of iodine in marine aquaria are likely to be almost exclusively in the foods given….. So only ongoing additions of iodine are likely to have a significant long term impact." http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/3/chemistry

High Si levels

ICP tests include the Si group, Silicon & silica - & “people should not interpret the values obtained as necessarily indicating anything about the dissolved silica concentration present in the tanks studied (except that the dissolved silica cannot exceed those numbers)". http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/1/aafeature1

So in regards to the ICP Si group results, the percentage of silica to silicon is not known.

Silica is rapidly removed from the tank water by Sponges, mollusks, diatoms, algae, radiolarians, and silicoflagellates.

You dosed silica in your tank Randy, & in fact your dosing experiments showed that up to 50% was taken up per day.

Removing lithium

Quote"I don't consider these sorts of levels of lithium a concern. It may come from your salt mix, so I would not assume a water change will lower it without somehow checking the mix first."
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-test-results.329405/#post-4087760

Triton ICP.. High Zinc, nickel, tin

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-09/rhf/index.php#12

“None of these metals is easily monitored by hobbyists. Consequently, my recommendation is similar to that for accumulating organics: employ some method of export, and then do not worry excessively. This method works for most aquarists, and there is no reason it cannot work for you. In fact, metals and organics are rather intimately related, and methods of exporting organics generally export metals as well.”


“Metals can also be exported in other ways. Growing macroalgae and other organisms also take up significant amounts of metals, effectively exporting them from the system if they are periodically pruned back and removed.”

:)

 

[Newb73]

Triton is a supplement program. Cal, alk, mag etc. These are typically dosed whether doing regular water changes or not.


Sure, you could do a 50% water change to decrease whatever toxins might accumulate, almost immediately, every six or twelve months. Or use ozone & negate the need for that 50% water change.
Or do both.

I change 40% a month, run ozone 12 hours a day, change the GAC once a month, run intermittent GFO and run two Kessil grow lights over my fuge..

And am about to start dosing red sea.

Still cheaper than Triton...lol.

 

[TbyZ]

TbyZ - There have been quite a number of sensible reasons offered for using water changes as part of your maintenance regimen. Just to recap:

1. Regular water changes can greatly simplify your set-up. 100% or 200% monthly water changes would completely remove the need for basically any other equipment. No dosing equipment, no skimmers, no carbon dosing, no algae refugium, no MarinePure blocks, no Triton testing - really, with enough water changes what else would you need? For a small tank or for a person with limited space or a limited inclination to deal with equipment - this is a great option.

2. While you can certainly reduce nitrates and phosphates without water changes, some people don't wish to grow algae or bacteria. I read a great quote on this forum a while back that made me laugh. Something like - "I didn't set up my aquarium to grow bugs and algae. I set it up to grow coral."

3. For some of us, water changes are *part* of our dosing schedule. It is easier to do a small calculated water change than dose 6 or 7 additional elements.

4. Dosing is not exact. I know with pretty good certainly what is in the salt I use. Do you know with certainty what you are putting in your aquarium when you add that AquaForest grab bag of trace elements?

5. People often deal with elements in excess of NSW. And sometimes they are content to simply manage those excess levels with water changes. For example, many foods contain high levels of zinc. But I might be very happy with the foods I currently use and would prefer to manage zinc levels with water changes rather than "eliminate the source" of the excess zinc.

6. Depending on the set-up, water changes can be cheaper than investing in dosing equipment, a refugium, a skimmer and such.

And so on. This is a complex hobby. At this point in the discussion I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish?

Firstly, I'd like to say I love algae & bacteria & everyone should. :rolleyes: There's another argument :D

I’m not arguing for people to stop doing water changes, or that there aren’t reasonable reasons to do them. I’m arguing the case to establish what legitimate reasons there are to do them, if these reasons are valid or just assumed, & what other measures could be taken to negate them.

A possible build-up of toxic dissolved organics may be a case against long term no water changes. But this isn’t necessarily the case.

Another, Randy pointed out, was high levels of inorganic trace elements introduced to the aquarium via sources such as food, pumps, etc. But again, this isn’t the case for all hobbyists, it can be measured & dealt with a least to a degree, and regular water changes of typical volume not only do little to address the problem, the salt itself can be the problem.


I still do water changes. I live 5 minutes away from an easy collectable source of pristine NSW. But not everyone does, & not everyone has a great source of town water to pour through their RODI units all day long. Some people have only bore water for instance, & that can have unimaginably high TDS levels. Hello filter replacement salesman.

And there are very successful tanks that apply the no regular water change method, like glenf DSR reefing.


There’s lots of arguments go on in this hobby regarding the best way to do things, what equipment is good or not. Gets heated, very political. Some people get very upset at anyone who argues against their opinion.

I’ll have people here hate me for this thread alone, for sticking to my guns if nothing else. So be it.

By arguing, or debating, you see others opinions, & I learn a lot.

There’s plenty of people happy & willing to argue with me.

But if nobody ever argued the point things would never progress.

I've gotten all I hoped to achieved out of this thread, and thank everyone who took part. :)

 

[bif24701]

I change 40% a month, run ozone 12 hours a day, change the GAC once a month, run intermittent GFO and run two Kessil grow lights over my fuge..

And am about to start dosing red sea.

Still cheaper than Triton...lol.

Yes it is.

The test alone cost more than 200 gallons of my salt and I make my RO/DI! Just forget the cost, nothing could convince me my reef is better off without water changes unless they started putting copper in the salt.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

"Other than iodine supplements, the significant sources of iodine in marine aquaria are likely to be almost exclusively in the foods given….. So only ongoing additions of iodine are likely to have a significant long term impact." http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/3/chemistry
:)

My question was rhetorical. Most, if not all, of these folks would see lower levels due to water changes, probably not from ozone, and several of them do not have any sort of obvious solution (frankly, the results might even be Triton test error).

 

[MnFish1]

I’m arguing the case to establish what legitimate reasons there are to do them, if these reasons are valid or just assumed, & what other measures could be taken to negate them.

The problem is that whenever anyone gives you a reason to do water changes - you discount it by mentioning an anecdotal tank or person that does not do them as a defense - as if their husbandry should apply to everyone in this hobby. I would bet that GlennF - has had his series of setbacks getting to his 'no water change aquarium' (he himself calls it an experiment). IMHO - you are taking a very easy thing to do (water changes) and saying lets make it much more complicated with supplements/ozone/etc - with no evidence as to why 'no water changes' is a goal to achieve. I grant you - it is 'different' to say no water changes - but other than that 'why'? Is there evidence that its better to do no water changes?

 

[MnFish1]

I’ll have people here hate me for this thread alone, for sticking to my guns if nothing else. So be it.

I for one don't hate you ... (take this from the tool). it is an interesting discussion - and lots of good information. And I apologize for saying dont be a 'bad word that will be deleted so I wont say it'. There are many ways to skin a cat - and your theory might be right. I (personally) am not willing to bet that thats the right way to go.

 

[Scott Campbell]

The problem is that whenever anyone gives you a reason to do water changes - you discount it by mentioning an anecdotal tank or person that does not do them as a defense - as if their husbandry should apply to everyone in this hobby. I would bet that GlennF - has had his series of setbacks getting to his 'no water change aquarium' (he himself calls it an experiment). IMHO - you are taking a very easy thing to do (water changes) and saying lets make it much more complicated with supplements/ozone/etc - with no evidence as to why 'no water changes' is a goal to achieve. I grant you - it is 'different' to say no water changes - but other than that 'why'? Is there evidence that its better to do no water changes?

I will second Mangasotan's post. This whole discussion seems akin to asking "Why drive a car when you can take the bus?" People mention a bunch of reasons why they like driving a car (get to play their own music, more leg room, sunroof, etc.) but the poster keeps responding that the bus still gets to the same place. Clearly the poster has a preference for buses. And then someone mentions they like riding a bike instead and someone else mentions walking and hiking and suddenly there are 10 pages of posts. It would be more helpful just to discuss why riding the bus is such a good thing and not even mention cars.

So on that note - why should no water changes be something to work toward? I went years without doing water changes because it took too much time compared to pulling out algae and my life was in some disarray. But that's not really a good reason. :) I guess a good reason could be less physical work required? Maybe less stress to the tank? I don't really know and TbyZ didn't really spell out the advantages of no water changes. But it seems like that would be a better discussion.

 

[gregkn73]

A very interesting discussion , unfortunately with a lot of attacking to Tbyz. But I am now used to the fact, that in any reef discussion , whenever someone comment "out of the box" will receive "flames" :-). I was doing regular weekly water changes for a long time , with NSW, just because everybody do them. After gaining some experience, see other successfull tanks with rare or no water changes, better understanding reef keeping generally, start measuring and dossing potassium additionally to KH, CA and Mg, adding also TM trace elements to 3 part ,I am now doing sparse water changes of 15% in winter and 2 big ones of 40% during the summer with the same results as earlier, and if I could make ICP tests I would probably make just 2 big water changes /year. If I haven't easy access to NSW I don't know what route I would have followed, because how can you trust artificial salts as far trace elements? If they can not keep constant concentrations to the major elements how can you trust them for trace elements? And they add whatever they consider crucial?

 

[SashimiTurtle]

If a reef tank was a computer, a water change would be like hitting Ctrl+Alt+Delete...

 

[Sallstrom]

I don't see any reasons to do change water if all the measurable parameters are where you want them and all the living things in your tank is fine. We have worked with this approach in our tropical aquariums at my work for 4 years now with good result(45000 liters total).
But we are not following any special methode, I don't like recipes ;) We do send in ICP-tests and adjust most of the measurable parameters to where we want them. In some of our systems we do small water changes. This is becuase we need to backwash our sand pressure filters(2-5% per month). But we also have tanks with great SPS-growth were we havn't changed any water in 4 years.

We have been able to get better and more stabil tanks without regular water changes. It also saves us money and time. So win win for us :)

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't see any reasons to do change water if all the measurable parameters are where you want them and all the living things in your tank is fine.

What about for people who do not do ICP testing due to expense or other reasons?

 

[Sallstrom]

What about for people who do not do ICP testing due to expense or other reasons?

Sure, then water changes is probably less risky then adding stuff by chance :)

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sure, then water changes is probably less risky then adding stuff by chance :)

Or not knowing that something is excessively elevated for reasons unrelated to intended dosing. :)

 

[Sallstrom]

Or not knowing that something is excessively elevated for reasons unrelated to intended dosing. :)

You mean something we can't measure? :) I can understand that argument, but at the same time it feels wrong to do all that water changes for something you don't know, if all the corals looks well. If all the ICP parameters looks good and the tank isn't well, then I probably would do a large water change, sure.
Do you have any tip for other things to measure other then ICP and all the usual stuff? Maybe could get some from the university to check our water :)

Sorry about the English, this would be so much easier to write about in Swedish for me.. ;)

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You mean something we can't measure? :) I can understand that argument, but at the same time it feels wrong to do all that water changes for something you don't know, if all the corals looks well. If all the ICP parameters looks good and the tank isn't well, then I probably would do a large water change, sure.
Do you have any tip for other things to measure other then ICP and all the usual stuff? Maybe could get some from the university to check our water :)

An example is a recent post from someone with a possible zinc issue, perhaps from a DIY screen frame that was corroding unnoticed.

He didn't know there was an issue until corals were suffering. With water changes the zinc would rise to a certain level that is undoubtedly lower than if there were no water changes in the same tank. I don't know if he did changes or not. The purpose of the example is to show how something might rise and not be detected until it was a problem, and to make the case that water changes can possibly be useful to reduce the rise of things with youg are unaware of as issues. :)

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-icp-high-zinc-advice-needed.326992/

"I have a 58 gallon mixed Reef that has been running for over 23 years. In the last couple of months I noticed my Coral was not looking as well as normal. Everything I test for at home was good and has been stable with the exception of low potassium. I sent off a Triton ICP test and it confirmed my low potassium along with EXTREMELY high Zinc. 91 µg/l."

 

[Sallstrom]

An example is a recent post from someone with a possible zinc issue, perhaps from a DIY screen frame that was corroding unnoticed.

He didn't know there was an issue until corals were suffering. With water changes the zinc would rise to a certain level that is undoubtedly lower than if there were no water changes in the same tank. I don't know if he did changes or not. The purpose of the example is to show how something might rise and not be detected until it was a problem, and to make the case that water changes can possibly be useful to reduce the rise of things with youg are unaware of as issues. :)

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/triton-icp-high-zinc-advice-needed.326992/

"I have a 58 gallon mixed Reef that has been running for over 23 years. In the last couple of months I noticed my Coral was not looking as well as normal. Everything I test for at home was good and has been stable with the exception of low potassium. I sent off a Triton ICP test and it confirmed my low potassium along with EXTREMELY high Zinc. 91 µg/l."

Okey, sorry. I meant other then the parameters we get in a ICP test :)

But Zn is a good example of why ICP is a great tool!

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Okey, sorry. I meant other then the parameters we get in a ICP test :)

But Zn is a good example of why ICP is a great tool!

/ David

I agree. But it is expensive to do it frequently.

There are other ons I'd like to see with lower limits of detection, such as iron. I'd like to be able to detect all bioactive elements at NSW levels, and current hobby ICP services cannot do that. :)

 

[Larry L]

Lots of good discussion on this thread, trying to catch up on it all. I'm looking forward to see how people running a Triton-style setup do over the long term and how often they end up doing water changes for corrections, just to see how it compares to people doing regular water changes. I think either method can be successful, but wanted to reply to a couple specific comments:

Another thing is that an aquarium that gets regular water changes can still end up having elements way above target levels, either from supplement dosing or from the salt mix itself.

If you're ending up above target levels on stuff you are dosing, then you're doing it wrong, and should adjust your dosing. That would apply whether you were doing regular water changes or doing the Triton method. If your salt is mixing up at higher levels of things you are worried about, look for a different salt mix, there are tons of them out there.

I think you're forgetting that some elements can end up being above target levels, over time, simply by doing regular water changes.

I assume this comment is referring to the same scenarios as above, but not sure.

Water changes cannot maintain element levels in a moderately stocked aquarium.

IMO this is what complicates the discussion the most about regular water changes vs Triton, because you need to dose in either case. Either you don't change water regularly, and dose 100% of what gets depleted, or you change some water on a regular basis, which replenishes some of the depletion, and dose to make up the rest. I think either way can be successful, assuming you are doing it right.